CDZ Comparing Guns and Motor Vehicles in the US

[320 Years of History]

Rights, like privileges, can and should be taken away when one (or many) fails to exercise the utmost responsibility in the exercise of that right and all that pertains to it. Individuals who reach the age of majority have the right to vote, but they lose that right while they are incarcerated for committing a felony.

This is where I think you are going in the wrong direction: (from Wikipedia)

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification," such as race or national origin.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. That is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.
This means the burden of restricting a fundamental right is on the government; the individual has no duty to prove anything.

I think I understand the "strict scrutiny" standard; however, that is one of six principles that underpin the proposal I made. I wouldn't alter the proposal even were I to not see that principle as being part of what underpins the proposal. I don't understand then how that one driving principle corresponds to the "strict scrutiny" standard insofar as the principle is nothing more than my saying that it's a principle I have and one that I applied/considered in developing the proposal.

 

[rightwinger]

There are roughly the same number of guns and motor vehicles in the US, and they are associated with the same number of deaths. However, about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so the likelihood of accidental death involving a car is about three times the likelihood of being killed by a gun (even greater if you factor out criminal/law enforcement deaths).

It just occurred to me that, given the huge number of guns in our country, remarkably few deaths can be attributed to gun ownership per se. Statistically, you are much safer owning a gun than driving in a car. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal use of firearms instead of their ownership?

Cars kill people by accident
Guns kill people on purpose

 

[2aguy]

There are roughly the same number of guns and motor vehicles in the US, and they are associated with the same number of deaths. However, about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so the likelihood of accidental death involving a car is about three times the likelihood of being killed by a gun (even greater if you factor out criminal/law enforcement deaths).

It just occurred to me that, given the huge number of guns in our country, remarkably few deaths can be attributed to gun ownership per se. Statistically, you are much safer owning a gun than driving in a car. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal use of firearms instead of their ownership?

Cars kill people by accident
Guns kill people on purpose

nope...compare apples to apples...

car accidents 2013.....35,000
gun accidents 2013... 505

 

[rightwinger]

There are roughly the same number of guns and motor vehicles in the US, and they are associated with the same number of deaths. However, about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so the likelihood of accidental death involving a car is about three times the likelihood of being killed by a gun (even greater if you factor out criminal/law enforcement deaths).

It just occurred to me that, given the huge number of guns in our country, remarkably few deaths can be attributed to gun ownership per se. Statistically, you are much safer owning a gun than driving in a car. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal use of firearms instead of their ownership?

Cars kill people by accident
Guns kill people on purpose

nope...compare apples to apples...

car accidents 2013.....35,000
gun accidents 2013... 505

Guns "on purpose" 2013.....32,000

 

[2aguy]

There are roughly the same number of guns and motor vehicles in the US, and they are associated with the same number of deaths. However, about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so the likelihood of accidental death involving a car is about three times the likelihood of being killed by a gun (even greater if you factor out criminal/law enforcement deaths).

It just occurred to me that, given the huge number of guns in our country, remarkably few deaths can be attributed to gun ownership per se. Statistically, you are much safer owning a gun than driving in a car. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal use of firearms instead of their ownership?

Cars kill people by accident
Guns kill people on purpose

nope...compare apples to apples...

car accidents 2013.....35,000
gun accidents 2013... 505

Guns "on purpose" 2013.....32,000

gun suicides....21,000

other tools used for suicide, 19,974..

Gun murder from FBI table 8, 2014....8,124.

 

[2aguy]

There are roughly the same number of guns and motor vehicles in the US, and they are associated with the same number of deaths. However, about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so the likelihood of accidental death involving a car is about three times the likelihood of being killed by a gun (even greater if you factor out criminal/law enforcement deaths).

It just occurred to me that, given the huge number of guns in our country, remarkably few deaths can be attributed to gun ownership per se. Statistically, you are much safer owning a gun than driving in a car. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal use of firearms instead of their ownership?

Cars kill people by accident
Guns kill people on purpose

nope...compare apples to apples...

car accidents 2013.....35,000
gun accidents 2013... 505

Guns "on purpose" 2013.....32,000

From the CDC 2013....

gun suicide.... 21,175

suicide other means.... 19,974

FBI gun murder rate 2013.... 8,454

As you can see, the gun murder rate in 2014 was 8,124....it went down from 2013......

 

[rightwinger]

There are roughly the same number of guns and motor vehicles in the US, and they are associated with the same number of deaths. However, about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so the likelihood of accidental death involving a car is about three times the likelihood of being killed by a gun (even greater if you factor out criminal/law enforcement deaths).

It just occurred to me that, given the huge number of guns in our country, remarkably few deaths can be attributed to gun ownership per se. Statistically, you are much safer owning a gun than driving in a car. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal use of firearms instead of their ownership?

Cars kill people by accident
Guns kill people on purpose

nope...compare apples to apples...

car accidents 2013.....35,000
gun accidents 2013... 505

Guns "on purpose" 2013.....32,000

From the CDC 2013....

gun suicide.... 21,175

suicide other means.... 19,974

FBI gun murder rate 2013.... 8,454

As you can see, the gun murder rate in 2014 was 8,124....it went down from 2013......

Makes me so happy that only 8000 people decided to kill someone in 2014

How many people in cars decided to kill?

 

[2aguy]

There are roughly the same number of guns and motor vehicles in the US, and they are associated with the same number of deaths. However, about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so the likelihood of accidental death involving a car is about three times the likelihood of being killed by a gun (even greater if you factor out criminal/law enforcement deaths).

It just occurred to me that, given the huge number of guns in our country, remarkably few deaths can be attributed to gun ownership per se. Statistically, you are much safer owning a gun than driving in a car. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal use of firearms instead of their ownership?

Cars kill people by accident
Guns kill people on purpose

nope...compare apples to apples...

car accidents 2013.....35,000
gun accidents 2013... 505

Guns "on purpose" 2013.....32,000

From the CDC 2013....

gun suicide.... 21,175

suicide other means.... 19,974

FBI gun murder rate 2013.... 8,454

As you can see, the gun murder rate in 2014 was 8,124....it went down from 2013......

Makes me so happy that only 8000 people decided to kill someone in 2014

How many people in cars decided to kill?

How do you think the shooters got where they were going? And the majority of the 8,124 who were murdered were other criminals....saving us money in court costs and feeding them......

 

[rightwinger]

Car Death:
OMG, I am going too fast........Crash

Gun Death:
You mother fucker, here is a bullet in your heart......BANG

 

[2aguy]

Car Death:
OMG, I am going too fast........Crash

Gun Death:
You mother fucker, here is a bullet in your heart......BANG

And the car accidents kill more people than gun accidents.........and even the intentional murder of other humans...

Cars are really dangerous things......and we let 16 year olds use them without supervision......on public roads....

 

[320 Years of History]

There are roughly the same number of guns and motor vehicles in the US, and they are associated with the same number of deaths. However, about 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, so the likelihood of accidental death involving a car is about three times the likelihood of being killed by a gun (even greater if you factor out criminal/law enforcement deaths).

It just occurred to me that, given the huge number of guns in our country, remarkably few deaths can be attributed to gun ownership per se. Statistically, you are much safer owning a gun than driving in a car. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal use of firearms instead of their ownership?

Cars kill people by accident
Guns kill people on purpose

nope...compare apples to apples...

car accidents 2013.....35,000
gun accidents 2013... 505

Guns "on purpose" 2013.....32,000

From the CDC 2013....

gun suicide.... 21,175

suicide other means.... 19,974

FBI gun murder rate 2013.... 8,454

As you can see, the gun murder rate in 2014 was 8,124....it went down from 2013......

Makes me so happy that only 8000 people decided to kill someone in 2014

How many people in cars decided to [use their car to] kill [one or more other individuals]?

Note:
I hope my edits of your remark, rightwinger, accurately depict the full intent its intended meaning. Let me know if they do not, please.

Okay, let's move back into the realm of something that makes sense to discuss. I'm not at all disagreeing with the general idea and reality that guns are far and away more often used to deliberately kill or wound others. But let's be realistic here.

People who intend to kill other people generally realize that by planning to do so, or attempting to do so, or successfully doing so, they subject themselves minimally to being sought, prosecuted and incarcerated for it. Very few folks want to be incarcerated (or worse); most (would be) killers want to "get away with it," that is, avoid having to endure suspicion, apprehension, prosecution, etc.

• Guns are more concealable than cars and can be used to kill more surreptitiously than can cars..
• Guns are more easily and clandestinely disposable than cars and it's much easier to remove evidence of one's association with a given gun than it is to do the same with a car used as a murder weapon.
• Assuming one successfully absconds from the scene of the killing, a gunshot leaves far less traceable, and less easily traced, evidence than does a car, particularly if there are witnesses to the killing.
• Guns don't require one come into close contact with one's target. A car, in contrast, is not a ranged weapon.

A gun therefore is a far better tool to use to kill another person than is a car because the nature of cars' existence in our society makes them poor tools to use for that purpose, despite their being quite effective for that very same purpose if and when they are so used.

Of course, there are circumstances that sometimes occur and that can even the playing field, so to speak, between guns and cars. Perhaps those circumstances existed, at least in the minds of the killers, in the 8K odd car killings that have been cited in this thread? Perhaps they didn't and the 8K car killings were instead unintended? I don't know, but I don't need to know to figure out that the comparison between gun killings and car killings is little more than an entertaining line of discussion. I seriously doubt any Constitutional attorney would present the comparisons and contrasts discussed here (and in the form and context that they've been presented) as part of their argument regarding something having to do with the Second Amendment.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Car Death:
OMG, I am going too fast........Crash

Gun Death:
You mother f•••er, here is a bullet in your heart......BANG

So, you would kill someone for having an Œdipus complex?

 

[jwoodie]

Rights, like privileges, can and should be taken away when one (or many) fails to exercise the utmost responsibility in the exercise of that right and all that pertains to it. Individuals who reach the age of majority have the right to vote, but they lose that right while they are incarcerated for committing a felony.

This is where I think you are going in the wrong direction: (from Wikipedia)

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification," such as race or national origin.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. That is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.
This means the burden of restricting a fundamental right is on the government; the individual has no duty to prove anything.

I think I understand the "strict scrutiny" standard; however, that is one of six principles that underpin the proposal I made. I wouldn't alter the proposal even were I to not see that principle as being part of what underpins the proposal. I don't understand then how that one driving principle corresponds to the "strict scrutiny" standard insofar as the principle is nothing more than my saying that it's a principle I have and one that I applied/considered in developing the proposal.

This is what I was referring to:

"Rights, like privileges, can and should be taken away when one (or many) fails to exercise the utmost responsibility in the exercise of that right"

Rights and privileges are completely different. Fundamental rights (e.g., 2nd Amendment) may not be taken away except under the most extreme circumstances. Failure to exercise the utmost responsibility in the exercise of those rights is not sufficient cause for the government to abridge them, and there is absolutely no burden on the individual to prove he is entitled to keep those rights. (In the felony example, the burden was on the government to prove that the individual was guilty of committing a serious crime, not vice versa.)

 

[320 Years of History]

Rights, like privileges, can and should be taken away when one (or many) fails to exercise the utmost responsibility in the exercise of that right and all that pertains to it. Individuals who reach the age of majority have the right to vote, but they lose that right while they are incarcerated for committing a felony.

This is where I think you are going in the wrong direction: (from Wikipedia)

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification," such as race or national origin.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. That is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.
This means the burden of restricting a fundamental right is on the government; the individual has no duty to prove anything.

I think I understand the "strict scrutiny" standard; however, that is one of six principles that underpin the proposal I made. I wouldn't alter the proposal even were I to not see that principle as being part of what underpins the proposal. I don't understand then how that one driving principle corresponds to the "strict scrutiny" standard insofar as the principle is nothing more than my saying that it's a principle I have and one that I applied/considered in developing the proposal.

This is what I was referring to:

"Rights, like privileges, can and should be taken away when one (or many) fails to exercise the utmost responsibility in the exercise of that right"

Rights and privileges are completely different. Fundamental rights (e.g., 2nd Amendment) may not be taken away except under the most extreme circumstances. Failure to exercise the utmost responsibility in the exercise of those rights is not sufficient cause for the government to abridge them, and there is absolutely no burden on the individual to prove he is entitled to keep those rights. (In the felony example, the burden was on the government to prove that the individual was guilty of committing a serious crime, not vice versa.)

Okay, but as I said before, and as is evident in the proposal I presented, I have not suggested that any right be taken away. What you are taking exception with is is one of the six principles that I've stated underpins the proposal I made, not with any provision of the proposal itself.

 

[rightwinger]

Cars kill people by accident
Guns kill people on purpose

nope...compare apples to apples...

car accidents 2013.....35,000
gun accidents 2013... 505

Guns "on purpose" 2013.....32,000

From the CDC 2013....

gun suicide.... 21,175

suicide other means.... 19,974

FBI gun murder rate 2013.... 8,454

As you can see, the gun murder rate in 2014 was 8,124....it went down from 2013......

Makes me so happy that only 8000 people decided to kill someone in 2014

How many people in cars decided to [use their car to] kill [one or more other individuals]?

Note:
I hope my edits of your remark, rightwinger, accurately depict the full intent its intended meaning. Let me know if they do not, please.

Okay, let's move back into the realm of something that makes sense to discuss. I'm not at all disagreeing with the general idea and reality that guns are far and away more often used to deliberately kill or wound others. But let's be realistic here.

People who intend to kill other people generally realize that by planning to do so, or attempting to do so, or successfully doing so, they subject themselves minimally to being sought, prosecuted and incarcerated for it. Very few folks want to be incarcerated (or worse); most (would be) killers want to "get away with it," that is, avoid having to endure suspicion, apprehension, prosecution, etc.

• Guns are more concealable than cars and can be used to kill more surreptitiously than can cars..
• Guns are more easily and clandestinely disposable than cars and it's much easier to remove evidence of one's association with a given gun than it is to do the same with a car used as a murder weapon.
• Assuming one successfully absconds from the scene of the killing, a gunshot leaves far less traceable, and less easily traced, evidence than does a car, particularly if there are witnesses to the killing.
• Guns don't require one come into close contact with one's target. A car, in contrast, is not a ranged weapon.

A gun therefore is a far better tool to use to kill another person than is a car because the nature of cars' existence in our society makes them poor tools to use for that purpose, despite their being quite effective for that very same purpose if and when they are so used.

Of course, there are circumstances that sometimes occur and that can even the playing field, so to speak, between guns and cars. Perhaps those circumstances existed, at least in the minds of the killers, in the 8K odd car killings that have been cited in this thread? Perhaps they didn't and the 8K car killings were instead unintended? I don't know, but I don't need to know to figure out that the comparison between gun killings and car killings is little more than an entertaining line of discussion. I seriously doubt any Constitutional attorney would present the comparisons and contrasts discussed here (and in the form and context that they've been presented) as part of their argument regarding something having to do with the Second Amendment.

Any attempt to compare deaths by auto to deaths by guns is specious

A person with a gun intentionally and with malice kills someone. Death by auto is a result of a failure in judgement

To imply we should not do anything about gun violence because people are killed in cars is simplistic nonsense

 

[2aguy]

nope...compare apples to apples...

car accidents 2013.....35,000
gun accidents 2013... 505

Guns "on purpose" 2013.....32,000

From the CDC 2013....

gun suicide.... 21,175

suicide other means.... 19,974

FBI gun murder rate 2013.... 8,454

As you can see, the gun murder rate in 2014 was 8,124....it went down from 2013......

Makes me so happy that only 8000 people decided to kill someone in 2014

How many people in cars decided to [use their car to] kill [one or more other individuals]?

Note:
I hope my edits of your remark, rightwinger, accurately depict the full intent its intended meaning. Let me know if they do not, please.

Okay, let's move back into the realm of something that makes sense to discuss. I'm not at all disagreeing with the general idea and reality that guns are far and away more often used to deliberately kill or wound others. But let's be realistic here.

People who intend to kill other people generally realize that by planning to do so, or attempting to do so, or successfully doing so, they subject themselves minimally to being sought, prosecuted and incarcerated for it. Very few folks want to be incarcerated (or worse); most (would be) killers want to "get away with it," that is, avoid having to endure suspicion, apprehension, prosecution, etc.

• Guns are more concealable than cars and can be used to kill more surreptitiously than can cars..
• Guns are more easily and clandestinely disposable than cars and it's much easier to remove evidence of one's association with a given gun than it is to do the same with a car used as a murder weapon.
• Assuming one successfully absconds from the scene of the killing, a gunshot leaves far less traceable, and less easily traced, evidence than does a car, particularly if there are witnesses to the killing.
• Guns don't require one come into close contact with one's target. A car, in contrast, is not a ranged weapon.

A gun therefore is a far better tool to use to kill another person than is a car because the nature of cars' existence in our society makes them poor tools to use for that purpose, despite their being quite effective for that very same purpose if and when they are so used.

Of course, there are circumstances that sometimes occur and that can even the playing field, so to speak, between guns and cars. Perhaps those circumstances existed, at least in the minds of the killers, in the 8K odd car killings that have been cited in this thread? Perhaps they didn't and the 8K car killings were instead unintended? I don't know, but I don't need to know to figure out that the comparison between gun killings and car killings is little more than an entertaining line of discussion. I seriously doubt any Constitutional attorney would present the comparisons and contrasts discussed here (and in the form and context that they've been presented) as part of their argument regarding something having to do with the Second Amendment.

Any attempt to compare deaths by auto to deaths by guns is specious

A person with a gun intentionally and with malice kills someone. Death by auto is a result of a failure in judgement

To imply we should not do anything about gun violence because people are killed in cars is simplistic nonsense

Then why do all the anti gunner journalists and activists keep doing it....?

 

[Nosmo King]

The automobile is designed for safe, efficient transportation. What is the gun designed to do?

 

[2aguy]

The automobile is designed for safe, efficient transportation. What is the gun designed to do?

It is designed to keep the owner alive.

 

[2aguy]

nope...compare apples to apples...

car accidents 2013.....35,000
gun accidents 2013... 505

Guns "on purpose" 2013.....32,000

From the CDC 2013....

gun suicide.... 21,175

suicide other means.... 19,974

FBI gun murder rate 2013.... 8,454

As you can see, the gun murder rate in 2014 was 8,124....it went down from 2013......

Makes me so happy that only 8000 people decided to kill someone in 2014

How many people in cars decided to [use their car to] kill [one or more other individuals]?

Note:
I hope my edits of your remark, rightwinger, accurately depict the full intent its intended meaning. Let me know if they do not, please.

Okay, let's move back into the realm of something that makes sense to discuss. I'm not at all disagreeing with the general idea and reality that guns are far and away more often used to deliberately kill or wound others. But let's be realistic here.

People who intend to kill other people generally realize that by planning to do so, or attempting to do so, or successfully doing so, they subject themselves minimally to being sought, prosecuted and incarcerated for it. Very few folks want to be incarcerated (or worse); most (would be) killers want to "get away with it," that is, avoid having to endure suspicion, apprehension, prosecution, etc.

• Guns are more concealable than cars and can be used to kill more surreptitiously than can cars..
• Guns are more easily and clandestinely disposable than cars and it's much easier to remove evidence of one's association with a given gun than it is to do the same with a car used as a murder weapon.
• Assuming one successfully absconds from the scene of the killing, a gunshot leaves far less traceable, and less easily traced, evidence than does a car, particularly if there are witnesses to the killing.
• Guns don't require one come into close contact with one's target. A car, in contrast, is not a ranged weapon.

A gun therefore is a far better tool to use to kill another person than is a car because the nature of cars' existence in our society makes them poor tools to use for that purpose, despite their being quite effective for that very same purpose if and when they are so used.

Of course, there are circumstances that sometimes occur and that can even the playing field, so to speak, between guns and cars. Perhaps those circumstances existed, at least in the minds of the killers, in the 8K odd car killings that have been cited in this thread? Perhaps they didn't and the 8K car killings were instead unintended? I don't know, but I don't need to know to figure out that the comparison between gun killings and car killings is little more than an entertaining line of discussion. I seriously doubt any Constitutional attorney would present the comparisons and contrasts discussed here (and in the form and context that they've been presented) as part of their argument regarding something having to do with the Second Amendment.

Any attempt to compare deaths by auto to deaths by guns is specious

A person with a gun intentionally and with malice kills someone. Death by auto is a result of a failure in judgement

To imply we should not do anything about gun violence because people are killed in cars is simplistic nonsense

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......35,369

Accidental gun deaths 2013......505

Then by year accidental gun deaths going down according to CDC final statistics table 10 from 2010-2013...

2010...606
2011...591
2012...548
2013...505
So...accidental gun deaths have been coming down as more people own and carry guns for self defense....now 13 million people actually carry guns for self defense......on their person, and the accidental gun death rate is going down, not up....





Accidental gun deaths of children under 14 in 2013....

Under 1 year old: 3

1-4 years old: 27

5-14 years old: 39
Total: 69 ( in a country of 320 million people)


2012...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_09.pdf

 

[Nosmo King]

The automobile is designed for safe, efficient transportation. What is the gun designed to do?

It is designed to keep the owner alive.

As are modern automobiles. Yours is no distinction.

Has it occurred that ABS braking systems, air bags, seat belat and collision reinforcement zones are designed to keep the owner alive?

What are the safety qualities of devices designed to propel lead slugs at high velocity?